Integrative demographic modelling reduces uncertainty in estimated rates of species' historical range shifts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Biogeographers have used three primary data types to examine shifts in tree ranges in response to past climate change: fossil pollen, genetic data and contemporary occurrences. Although recent efforts have explored formal integration of these types of data, we have limited understanding of how integration affects estimates of range shift rates and their uncertainty. We compared estimates of biotic velocity (i.e. rate of species' range shifts) using each data type independently to estimates obtained using integrated models. Location Eastern North America. Taxon Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall (green ash). Methods Using fossil pollen, genomic data and modern occurrence data, we estimated biotic velocities directly from 24 species distribution models (SDMs) and 200 pollen surfaces created with a novel Bayesian spatio‐temporal model. We compared biotic velocity from these analyses to estimates based on coupled demographic‐coalescent simulations and Approximate Bayesian Computation that combined fossil pollen and SDMs with population genomic data collected across the F. pennsylvanica range. Results Patterns and magnitude of biotic velocity over time varied by the method used to estimate past range dynamics. Estimates based on fossil pollen yielded the highest rates of range movement. Overall, integrating genetic data with other data types in our simulation‐based framework reduced apparent uncertainty in biotic velocity estimates and resulted in greater similarity in estimates between SDM‐ and pollen‐integrated analyses. Main Conclusions By reducing uncertainty in our assessments of range shifts, integration of data types improves our understanding of the past distribution of species. Based on these results, we propose further steps to reach the integration of these three lines of biogeographical evidence into a unified analytical framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".